Recommended Posts

All justices cast a vote on the case. I already explained why I singled him out.

You didn't even need to explain. When referencing a legal case it is common practice to reference the judge who delivers the majority and minority rules rather than every judge on each side. If I were writing a paper on Engel vs Vitale would I then have to mention specifically that Honorable Judges Black, Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Brennan held the opinion that reciting a government written prayer in a public school was an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendments guarantees to freedom of religious practice? No. Thats stupid. I would explain that Honorable Judge Black's majority stated that blah blah blah.

I personally think the quotes around honorable do little to add to the conversation other than to stir up the salt you have already felt the brunt of, but people are just being triggered because you're a Californian and they are assuming you're some easily triggered millennial Starbucks liberal hippie to poke fun at like everybody does outside of the liberal west when they see a Californian .

Share on other sites

You should move north of the border if you want to see what "excessive government regulation" looks like .

I could move to the burning shit storm that is Commiefornia.

Please be aware that there may be visual artifacts left behind by the beta testing phase of development. If you see any such artifacts, we recommend that you do not interact with them; we'll weed them out eventually. There's no guarantee that we'll weed them out eventually.

Not really. Your point, taken at face value, is the US' population is denser, end of story.

Pretty much that is all there is to it, higher density means more customers means faster ROI.

Quote

When that's only true of a handful of places that are shotgunned across the country.

Even if it is only true in one place, it still proves it's true. Just because arid deserts don't have enough people to pay for more ISP's doesn't change the fact that your heavily populated areas do. If you live in a truly capitalist democratic country then why are there only two options?

Quote

And going off of your history, reading into your arguments at anything beyond face value is a waste of my time.

why's that?

5 hours ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

You didn't even need to explain. When referencing a legal case it is common practice to reference the judge who delivers the majority and minority rules rather than every judge on each side. If I were writing a paper on Engel vs Vitale would I then have to mention specifically that Honorable Judges Black, Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Brennan held the opinion that reciting a government written prayer in a public school was an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendments guarantees to freedom of religious practice? No. Thats stupid. I would explain that Honorable Judge Black's majority stated that blah blah blah.

I personally think the quotes around honorable do little to add to the conversation other than to stir up the salt you have already felt the brunt of, but people are just being triggered because you're a Californian and they are assuming you're some easily triggered millennial Starbucks liberal hippie to poke fun at like everybody does outside of the liberal west when they see a Californian .

I'm Australian, I don't care about California or any other specific part of the US, When someone says that judge A had the deciding vote and the reality is they were always going to vote for, then no, that judge did not have the deciding vote. The deciding vote has to have been the last voter to tip the result.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and unless you have some sort of objective high ground then calling others opinions as salty is somewhat a salty post.

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron. Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post

Share on other sites

This might be okay in some countries, but in many places in the US, for example, there is effectively one choice of ISP.

Canada has a bit better rules when it comes to forcing the incumbents to allow third parties to resell access, but even then there are limitations, such as the third party companies not having access to the same speeds, etc.

I'm not sure why there is contention over a comparitive/analogous point...

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm Australian, I don't care about California or any other specific part of the US, When someone says that judge A had the deciding vote and the reality is they were always going to vote for, then no, that judge did not have the deciding vote. The deciding vote has to have been the last voter to tip the result.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and unless you have some sort of objective high ground then calling others opinions as salty is somewhat a salty post.

As I explained, it is common in the US to refer to the majority presenter solely when citing the majority in a court case. Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, thus you would refer to him. This is why Dr. Macintosh specifically called out Kavanaugh. He is a controversial man, yes, but is a judge first and foremost.

Link to post

Share on other sites

As I explained, it is common in the US to refer to the majority presenter solely when citing the majority in a court case. Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, thus you would refer to him. This is why Dr. Macintosh specifically called out Kavanaugh. He is a controversial man, yes, but is a judge first and foremost.

Indeed - procedure and tradition. Though those who disagree politically with the OP will often use that as a "Gotcha!" to try and show bias. Though the OP did show some bias (quotation marks, for example), some bias is human nature. As long as he tried to minimize his bias, that's the important factor.

Share on other sites

As I explained, it is common in the US to refer to the majority presenter solely when citing the majority in a court case. Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, thus you would refer to him. This is why Dr. Macintosh specifically called out Kavanaugh. He is a controversial man, yes, but is a judge first and foremost.

Mentioning the majority presenter is fine, in fact leading with the majority presenter is more important in many ways because we need too know where the case is coming from. My issue was naming him as the deciding vote. He was always going to vote in favor, so the deciding vote had to have been one of the other four judges. The issue is presentation of the facts that rely what is happening without heavily insinuating the outcome was due to something more biased.

For all we know the other judges are all just as biased in this and have taken their sides ignoring due process.

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron. Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Did the supreme Court decide that the supreme Court would hear the case, or did the supreme Court decide that lower courts would have to hear the case as opposed to it being blocked?

I don't think the Supreme court can force a lower court to hear a case. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only thing they can do is either hear the case themselves, or decline to intervene at all.

Link to post

Share on other sites

If Apple were to lose this, their devices would be better, period. That's about 50% of the reason I switched to Android. Also, as someone who disliked the Wii until I home brewed it and it ended up becoming my favorite console of all time because of it, I'm definitely for freedom in that case.

At the same time, I hate to see a company FORCED to do something. It's hard to feel sorry for Apple though, and it's pretty shitty how they lock their devices up. Even littler stuff, like not being able to actually manage files, it's complete bullshit.

If you haven't held a SNES controller before, you don't know gaming.

well okay that's not entirely true but still go play a fucking SNES if you haven't.